Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Like oil and water despite half a century of being forced to share a container

In 2006, the GSS asked respondents about the racial proportions "among all acquaintances" of theirs. The following percentages, by selected demographic characteristics, who answered either "mostly a different race than you" or "almost all a different race than you":

Fresher data is always preferable, but it's not as though this was queried during the civil rights ructions of the sixties. It was gathered after nearly five decades of trying to force diversity onto the public through relentless legal, cultural, and moral coercion.

How improbable these results appear given a null hypothesis that people assort randomly depends on how exactly we define "all acquaintances". Is it Dunbar's number? Facebook friends?

The chance that most of the acquaintances of a black man who has just three of them are non-black is 95%. That is, if acquaintances were made randomly then 19-in-20 black men would report two or three of his total acquaintances being non-black in this absurdly pro-Diversity! assumption of what "among all acquaintances" means. The reported result is one-tenth of that.

Scale it up to 30 acquaintances or 300 acquaintances and the chances rapidly approach zero. In other words, no matter how we look at it these results are wildly divergent from what we'd expect if segregation wasn't an overwhelmingly strong natural impulse for people of all racial backgrounds. Differences in socioeconomic status, education, and the like come nowhere close to explaining it. Middle and upper class blacks report even higher levels of self-segregation than lower and working class blacks do!

To say the American experiment has mostly worked and that in 21st century America the idea that inherent preferences to be around members of one's own race is a relic of the past is absurd.

This is blatantly obvious not just to those who Notice but to nearly everyone. The NYT's "mapping segregation" is one of the most handy graphical representations of as much.

Liberal whites who live in urban areas that are majority-non-white don't acquaint much with non-whites.

A more direct way of putting it is that liberal whites seek out other whites in their own personal lives, their paeans to Diversity! notwithstanding. Only 25% of white liberals choose "about evenly split", so even when we give them this ideologically comfortable weasel option, the overwhelming majority (73%) still admit they acquaint mostly or almost exclusively with whites.

If Diversity! was a self-evident good, there would be no need to coerce and browbeat people into it. Even it's most vociferous proponents refuse to practice what they preach. We're not in the realm of ancient virtue here, the kind that was practiced because it improved one's existence in there here and now. We're in the realm of supernatural grace, of hair shirts and self-flagellation, of enduring self-abnegating suffering now for the promise of paradise in the future.

Our job is to call those who promote Diversity! out on their hypocrisy. It needs to be done publicly and relentlessly whenever the opportunity presents itself.

I don't see the data like you did at all, audacious. I see that despite what people like you say about the coloreds, they are, as I predicted, way less segregated or racist than you would give them credit for. Many people like you say stuff like "blacks/hispanics/asians are more racist and more self-segregating than whites" yet the opposite was true.

Oh come now, hypocrisy implies actual principles, not shameless chicanery and lies. Diversity is something they wish on their enemies not their friends. It would and could only be hypocritical if THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVED IT. AND THEY DON'T.

AE - genetic diversity was created by the difficulty in surmounting distance over 1,000 generations. On an evolutionary timescale, the convergence of genetic differences is very rapid. It appears that on average people are more likely to have children with people of other races than to report that all their friends are not of their own race. That shows that racial groups are not "like oil and water".

People don't find the opposite sex to be as threatening, yet friends tend to be of the same sex. Men compete with men for status, women compete with women to snag the most desirable dude. There is so much latent tension within each sex, it's not surprising that friendships tend to be monoracial as that removes another possible source of friction, race.

Competition-wise, the races also compete for physical and cultural territory. Hanging out with other races ups the chances that you're "infringing" on someone else's space, which is both personally uncomfortable and creates a greater risk of being intimidated away from "their" territory.

Feryl: that may be true, but it doesn't refute my statement. The amount of tension rises and falls over time. Attempting to keep tensions low, and preventing the perception that tensions are increasing due to Trump allied parties, is optimal for multiple reasons.

I think that SWPLs actually do like Diversity! in a very cosmetic sense. They enjoy being able to walk around a city and see people of various backgrounds around them. It allows them to feel more cosmopolitan and worldly. They also like having non-white acquaintances and being able to dine out in ethnic restaurants.

As such, that's why you'll encounter SWPLs who live in all white neighborhoods who still can't imagine ever living in Podunk, USA, and be able to sincerely state that the lack of ethnic diversity in those places is a killer for them. The reasons are genuine, even if they're ultimately superficial.

Never underestimate the power of the human mind to block off the negative effects of something it likes. SWPLs like Diversity! because they believe they're evil if they don't, so they'll associate the things they do like with it, and will cordon off the externalities as isolated incidents. This is especially true when the reigning ideology tells them this is so. Yang Jisheng in the book, "Tombstone," writes about how his father starved to death during the Great Leap Forward (where roughly 40 million people starved to death), but wrote it off as an isolated incident because he loved the Chinese Communist Party and they controlled the flow and tenor of information. There's a lot to learn from that.

Progs would argue that inherent racism ghettoizes people, thus reducing their ability to create relationships outside their race. So, the black guy in West Baltimore never gets to meet his analog in the white world, thus never being able to make friends, date, etc. It's circular reasoning, of course, but it is comforting to them.

That said, the number for Jews is interesting. Does that mean only 2.2% of Jews have most non-Jewish acquaintances? That would be a shocking result.

Revealed preferences overwhelmingly show people preferring the company of others who are racially similar to themselves. That blacks and whites, who've been sharing the US for four centuries continue to self-segregate is strong evidence that integration will never occur on a large scale without perpetual coercion (and even then people resist it).

Joshua,

For thee but not for me, yes.

Legate,

That putative convergence is occurring almost exclusively in white countries. It's not a global phenomenon, it's a breeding out of Europeans.

Sid,

They like visiting the zoo and the mall, too. That's what vacations are for. A nation is not a hotel. Sorry Canada!

Z,

No, it's race specifically, and Jews overwhelmingly identify as white, so it's just telling us that Jews don't hang around non-whites.

Ah, that makes more sense. It would also explain Hispanics. Many of them count themselves as white or count their Castizo friends as white. I knew two Mexican guys, who could have been brothers, they looked so much alike. One said he was white while the other claimed to be Hispanic. Most people would have assumed they were Italians or Spaniards.

I suspect another look would be to ask people if all or most of their acquaintances are of their race. That's where you would see a lot of lying among the honkey cohort.

I tried to explain to somebody recently that Leftists engage an extreme mental acrobatics and rationalization in order to feel better about being monstrous hypocrites. For example, your George Clooneys out there will explain away avoiding too muchdiversity by acting as if some mysterious cloud of poverty/disorder/crime/sullen faces materialized out of nowhere. Things are painted in abstract and amorphous terms; it's never a matter of individual moral defect or asking people to live on terms they aren't capable of.

Liberal policy has done more damage to Western blacks than previous traditional policy since whites (and blacks!) no longer are encouraged to swiftly mete out appropriate justice. Also, desegregation of black elites has been a horrific failure, as their lives as ersatz white people means that most black areas no longer have capable leaders and example setters. Artificially raising the status of the talented tenth hits most blacks really hard; bell curve wise, probably a good 50-60% of blacks don't have the mental horsepower to compete with average whites or greater blacks. They see what most whites and some blacks make of themselves, feel insecure and betrayed, and lash out at the system for doing them wrong.

The bitching about separate but equal never really made sense because what exactly was stopping blacks from building a better society for themselves?Yeah, things weren't equal, but that's because blacks were mostly left to their own devices. And they did the best they could, which is never going to be that great.

It was during WW2 that blacks moved out of the South in earnest. Whites would lose vast areas of their cities in the process. As the post-WW2 civil rights movement gained steam, blacks got more and more restive. Meanwhile, as blacks participated in greater levels of crime and rioting, higher end blacks found it increasingly easy to move among whites professionally and residentially. With deseg. policies, it became easier for higher end blacks to move into better areas, often times leading to whites gradually losing yet more areas, yet, due to AA and restrictions on not selling to blacks, better blacks had the means to avoid new ghettos and chase white people further and further out to the suburbs. And super elite blacks (your Obamas and Kamala Harrises) had the money to live among elite whites who knew that there just weren't enough blacks like that who could move in and ruin the neighborhood.

The phenom. of blacks chasing whites further and further out into the suburbs is the result of three things:

1. Blacks being allowed to move into white areas.2. Blacks being, even at the best of times, troublesome compared to other ethnic groups.3. The ridiculous birth rate of blacks after WW2.

Too many blacks moving into too many white areas. First they got the cities (or at least, vast chunks of non-exclusive areas), then they got some of the inner suburbs, then they (and now, immigrants) are currently pushing many whites from the outer suburbs to the exurbs, esp. if they've got kids.

The black a block thing that used to be allowed (to the extent that even one black was permitted) was useful because the talented twentyeth often serves as a vanguard, or maybe even a trojan horse portending an invasion by the lower legions of blacks. Quotas stopped that.

Black birth rates appear to be rapidly declining in tandem with other native ethnic groups, thank god. But swells of invaders from Africa/the Middle East are off-setting that positive development. In most areas of the US, it used to be fecund blacks that were the menace. These days, it's mosques and frantically spoken non-European languages.

BTW, did globalists see demo. reports about even blacks in the West controlling their birthrates? Was that the catalyst for the million Muslim mob being sicced on the West?

Also, Sid, nobody enjoys crime. In the late 60's-early 90's, much of urban America was inhospitable. In NYC, the market boom, rising property values, and Giuliani pushed a lot of the worst blacks into either jail or other cities by the early 90s, and of course those cities in turn saw higher crime rates and lower property values. NYC is really the only large city which improved itself in the early 90's; other cities didn't see improvements until cocooning set in (and crack use declined) in the later 90's.

Until we bring back old school ways of dealing with blacks, we can predict that within the next 5-10 years, another big crime wave will start and the culture will change to reflect the horrors of urban (e.g., black) America, with tales of muggings, robberies, rapes, and gang beatdowns superseding the swpl propaganda about "bland" white bread Middle America. Note that heartland rock actually became bigger in the 80's, while more trendy groups wrote songs about escaping the city (like GNR). Whereas in the 70's and 80's, whites opted to just avoid blacks, perhaps in the future dangerous era demographics will have changed enough that ethnic groups besides whites will opt to take on blacks face to face. Then again, maybe even whites will say enough, time to fight back. Who knows?

Feryl - it is very easy to decrease crime by increasing imprisonment and in the extreme case capitol punishment. There will only be as much crime as the public is willing to tolerate. That is why in the 90s, Clinton had to raise incarceration rates.

AE - "That putative convergence is occurring almost exclusively in white countries. It's not a global phenomenon".What makes you say that? It does not match the data that I'm aware of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_Ancestry_Large.svg

"it's a breeding out of Europeans."I though we were in agreement about obesity having a temporary effect on fertility, and our only disagreement was future resource scarcity? Since you did not believe my forecast, perhaps you will believe the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Their last unclassified report was released in 2012:https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Special%20Report_ICA%20Global%20Water%20Security.pdf

The best case scenario, as I see it, is the Democrats continuing to have their borderline, histrionic, hysterical temper tantrum and breakdown over the next four years, while Trump continues to steer the ship aright, taking in ever fewer immigrants while deporting ever more illegals. The lower taxes and decreased regulations bolster the economy, while the expulsion of immigrant communities and focus on American jobs and domestic productivity means that wages and living standards increase. The changes don't happen instantly and they don't happen completely smoothly, but they're noticeable and increasingly undeniable.

Meanwhile, even as ISIS is destroyed in Iraq and Syria, terrorism only worsens as a crisis in Western Europe. The contrast between America and Western Europe is unambiguous, especially with East-Central Europe becoming ever nicer places to vacation to.

The Democrats give it their all in 2020 and come away defeated yet again. They start to realize that maybe they're wrong on the core issues Trumpism staked out: open borders, lax policing, and invade-the-world/invite-the-world policies are disasters for modern America. Around this time, there'll be all kinds of GWAS and other genetic studies using the latest techniques, showing that racial differences are profound. Maybe the globalist brain trusts in both the Republican and Democratic parties reach an understanding: there can be substantial differences between both parties on health care policies, social benefits, the role of religion in public life, etc., but our public and social elites will start to be more realistic on race, especially with our advantages over China narrowing every year. On the flip side, we'll be tactful about it so as to keep racial discord low.

Of course, I am not suggesting this is inevitable, ideal, or even all that likely. (Democrats will probably just continue to externalize their failures until they win, in which case they'll gleefully try to ruin Core America as punishment for being so deplorable!), but it is the best scenario I see potentially happening. At any rate, I'm never voting Democrat and I'm never voting cuck again. I'll only vote for Republicans who support Trumpism, until the far off chance arises that there are sensible, realistic Democrats on the ticket.

Even among liberal whites 73% admit to mostly/almost all acquaintances being white. Natural, healthy, and... deplorable!

Feryl,

The other famous blogger from Baltimore relayed a story on a recent podcast about how one of those higher-end blacks moved next door and begged him not to leave. He ended up leaving all the same and the neighborhood predictably went to hell.

Legate,

Those are all white countries and they're all, with the exception of some central European ones, becoming less white. There are no countries of any significance (at all?) that are becoming more European.

The obesity connection is an intriguing one. I'm not as naturally sanguine about it working itself out, though. On the other hand, maybe we solve the sub-Saharan overpopulation problem by converting all aid to the continent into convenience store foodstuffs. McDonald's can lead the effort--a billion Africans served!

I haven't read that, no. Chua's book was a good entry point when I was in the process of being red-pilled in college, but while her book was laudable, she didn't cross the HBD threshold in any meaningful way and by the time that book came out in ~2010 I no longer had much patience for book-length treatments of subjects uninformed by HBD.

"it is very easy to decrease crime by increasing imprisonment and in the extreme case capitol punishment. There will only be as much crime as the public is willing to tolerate. That is why in the 90s, Clinton had to raise incarceration rates."

Incarceration went up big time in the 80's. There are many factors to crime, or lack thereof. All kinds of crime went up dramatically around 1968. It appears that a combination of youthful demographics, people getting out more often, sentences being lightened, and drugs/alcohol abuse coalesced by that point to give us crime rates that would've been unthinkable in the 40's or 50's. The Carter era is by many accounts the last peak of overall wildness/hedonism in America (property crime is highest from 1979-1981, child killings peak in 1980).

The early Reagan years show a dip in crime, as people start to regret the excesses of the 70s. But that seems mainly to be a white thing, as blacks start to do epic amounts of crack and violent crime surges in the later 80's and early 90's. After about 30 years of people being more outgoing, people start to withdraw in the 90's. Blacks start to do less crack. Sentencing remains tough. So crime starts to fall in the later 90's.

In the 80's and 90's, tough on crime was an easy thing to sell because of the (accurate) perception that the system let way too many people skate in the 60's and 70's. Nobody wanted to make those mistakes again. The much derided war on drugs wasn't really mocked until crime and drug use begin declining in 1993. Whereas in the 70s, middle aged adults believed that pot smoking was a big problem for teens of the time (indeed, late Boomers did more drugs than any other generation). And in the mid 80's thru very early 90's, lots of movies and TV shows associated drugs with a too-fast life (coke, as you'd imagine) or pitiful slackerdom (pot). OD's and drug burnouts were a serious problem by the 80's, and few people made light of it at the time. Certainly, it wasn't ignored either (unlike today's stealth opoid epidemic, which is killing far more people than coke/booze/heroin ever did in the 70's and 80's.

When people cocoon, we really lose touch with what's going on with other people. By the 80's, people had been outgoing for several decades and had had experience with some of their friends getting ruined by drugs....And they got ticked off that anyone would go down that road, and also that anyone would be slimy enough to sell harmful illicit drugs to anyone who coud pay. The pro-drug crowd neatly buries that fact that during the last period of very low drug use, that happened in the early 60's, property crime was really low. Funny, imagine that.

AE - "Those are all white countries"Are you saying the South American countries are white countries? Look at the percentages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:European_Ancestry_Large.svg

"I'm not as naturally sanguine about it working itself"I was sanguine twenty years ago when I determined the pharmaceutical industry was creating products that were not targeting root causes of problems. I was sanguine ten years ago when I thought medical research was heading in the right direction. I still have hope we won't have to evolve our way out of this, but I am not sanguine. We are fine in the medium and long term, but it is probably too late to prevent problems in the short term.

Read the report when you have time. I have no inside information, but I suspect they stopped publishing non-classified versions because too many of their predictions were coming true in a rather geopolitically violent way.

"she didn't cross the HBD threshold in any meaningful way" - That was the entire subject of her book. She was speaking euphemistically. Books like The Bell Curve are an attempt to explain things to people who need to be told them. They have not been well received by large segments of society, hence people speak in euphemism. I would suggest trying to read Day of Empire again.

Holding the microphone means never having to say you're sorry. Pro-drug advocates won over the liberal media and have since condemned the War on Drugs as a failure.

Meanwhile, since controlling the narrative, tens of thousands of people have died a year (maybe 40,000 in 2014 alone https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-white-death-proven/) from the Opioid Epidemic. The epidemic is a good screenshot of a libertarian approach to drugs: No social stigma against drugs, no government effort to stop it, people allowed to fend for themselves against a corporate-funded ad blitz. A catastrophic failure by any measure, but I don't see Gary Johnson being called to answer for how his drug policies would lead to different results from what you see here.

"Meanwhile, since controlling the narrative, tens of thousands of people have died a year (maybe 40,000 in 2014 alone https://www.unz.com/isteve/the-white-death-proven/) from the Opioid Epidemic. The epidemic is a good screenshot of a libertarian approach to drugs: No social stigma against drugs, no government effort to stop it, people allowed to fend for themselves against a corporate-funded ad blitz. A catastrophic failure by any measure, but I don't see Gary Johnson being called to answer for how his drug policies would lead to different results from what you see here."

Yeah, it was a failure when (mostly white) people decided, due to personal experience, legal consequences, and growing stigmatization, to not do as many drugs in the 80's and 90's. Too bad blacks were too dumb and indulgent to get that memo, as decades of black liberation ideology played itself out as black elites abandoning the ghetto while lesser blacks fried their already limited brains. Pot is associated with psychosis, and I'd imagine those who start with less smarts and mental stability are even more prone to suffering from the effects of drugs than others. Perhaps a reason the average negro was more respectful to police before the 60's was that they hadn't suffered drug-induced paranoia by that point.

Blacks are like a long-suffering guinea pig. Every irresponsible policy promoted by our "betters" always hits blacks first and hardest. Though total death is alarming, what about the brain death of legions of blacks and prole whites that's taken place since the late 60's? Boomers and X-ers are supposed to be cleaning up the mess that was created over the last 50 years, yet look at what many of them did to their faculties during that time.

He links to a GSS graph that shows pot legalization being at an all-time low of public support in 1990. In the Clinton era, cultural liberalism grows while crime declines, and support in the late 90's is the highest it's been since the late 70's. By the late 2000's, Millennials (who unlike Boomers and X-ers, do not remember the anti-drug culture of the 80's/early 90's nor do they remember how bad crime was during that era) are fueling a huge rise in pro-pot sentiment.

"Denmark is one of the only countries with the balls to commission studies into who uses how much tax money, and oh my it turns out that non-western migrants and their descendants use up an astounding 59% of all tax money paid into the system despite making up less than 20% of the population of the country.

So much for paying those pensions and economic benefits the politicians keep talking about as a justification for mass migration.

That giant sucking sound you here is "compassion" about one's fellow man exiting, leaving a space to be filled by concern regarding the fiscal soundness of the welfare state. America (which has had a fair amount of blacks since God knows when) never had anything on the scale of the the Euro welfare state, but liberals in the 60's insisted on trying it anyway. Disaster. Over the next 20 years the modern US welfare system became a target of derision, associated as it was with black single moms popping out kids in the ghetto.

The erstwhile light majority does not want it's money being thrown at the dark underclass. Between changing demographics, Europe's soft on crime attitude, and the generous welfare, Europe's racial 1960's/70's appears to be fast approaching, if they aren't experiencing it already. It certainly wouldn't be novel compared to what the US and South Africa have dealt with. I saw that NYC's white population declined by 29%(!) between 1940 and 1970, with a further decline of about 19% by 1990. The build-up of Suburbia after WW2 may have happened in the absence of blacks, but there's no doubt that the flood of blacks into the urban north in the 20's/30's/40s accelerated the need of whites to establish areas free of blacks.

In spacious America, we built suburbs and prisons and kept welfare (mostly) low to try and deal with our biggest headache, blacks. Due to general prosperity and low density living, most whites came to tolerate high levels of diversity in our nation (including lots of immigrants)since we could always at least have our suburban/small town sanctuaries away from the teeming cities. Sure, those places started to really suck in the late 60's due to Teddy Kennedy, incompetent civil servants, emboldened blacks, and growing numbers of bums and addicts, but if we mostly could avoid them, then, well, I guess they can do their own thing while we do our thing. Western Europeans can't just build massive new neighborhoods to escape to, like Americans did after WW2. They'll have to compete with the dark hordes face to face, and if they don't get their balls back soon, many of them will die childless and depressed (or gleefully decadent) while the ones with more of a survival instinct will flee to the Anglo diaspora, or perhaps even Eastern Europe. That's if Western Europe becomes a total basketcase and/or Eastern Europe welcomes white Western refugees.

WRT changing demographics in America, Canada, Australia, those countries still can have future lebensraum with in their own borders. They're young and large countries with a lot of open space left. Meanwhile, France has existed for a gazillion years and has the area of roughly the Upper Midwest, with much greater population density. Absent a backbone, higher birthrates, and drastically curtailed immigration/welfare/crime polices, what are French whites going to do? At some point, native white Europeans are going to have to burn down elite palaces if the elites don't get their act together soon.

AE - we disagree on how the importance of knowledge is measured. I find frequently the most important knowledge is the least comprehended. Most of the medical advances in the 20th century came from scientific knowledge that was understood by only a very small part of the population. The fruits of that knowledge were widely shared, but the underlying technical knowledge remained in the hands of the biologists, chemists, and physicists.

"Southern South America--Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, Chile--are white countries." - only in the sense that Latinos in the United States are about 65% descended from Europeans. We typically call people white in the United States if they are 98%+ of European ethnic heritage. However, it is not uncommon in some countries for someone who is 25% African, and part of the educated upper class, to call themselves white. United States ethnic tribal identity has different lines than tribal identity in South America. However, this mixing did not prevent European genes from having spread quite rapidly in twenty to twenty five generations.

"There are no countries of any significance (at all?) that are becoming more European."Women evolved to conceive babies at a time such that pregnancies would require the most nutrients when food was the most plentiful. This meant the Victorians conceived mainly in the later Winter, or early Spring, when they were very thin. This trait was very helpful for European women that experienced harsh winters, but is harmful in the current environment. That is the evolutionary reason why obesity is reducing fertility. Europeans conquered the seasons, now we must conquer ourselves.https://www.whattoexpect.com/wom/preconception/1221/the-most-common-month-to-conceive-a-baby.aspx

We see the world differently. You see cultural problems. I see medical problems. I can't influence you to see the world the way I do. However, this is why I don't try to solve cultural problems. I see things in terms of biology. I seek a medical revolution, I don't think the root of our problems are cultural. I hope I will make a meaningful contribution to a successful effort to improve modern medical technology. There are sadly too few of us performing this work. I will have to leave it to Trump to defend civilization. It is good he has so many dedicated supporters.

The dynamics are different in Europe for several reasons, all of which will cause conflagrations larger and faster than stateside.

1) Less history sharing spaces. American whites are like African big game--we've 'evolved' alongside more violent blacks and consequently know how to navigate with and around them for the most part. Countries like Sweden have gone from nothing to majority-Muslim cities in a single generation. Native Swedes are dodo birds.

2) MENA Muslims are more systematically antagonistic towards the West than American NAMs are. American NAMs think "whites have too much, they got it unfairly, now it's our turn to even the score". MENA invaders think "the land of the infidels needs to burn". The latter is harder to manage than the former

3) Free speech. The US is, despite all its faults, still the best place in the world for it.

5) More room to roam in the US. Fly from New York to Seattle and it's staggering just how much open space there is in the US. Over the long term, that might contribute to the frog-in-the-boiler problem, but in the short-term it means de facto separation is easier than in Europe.

It's a lame excuse but I really am slammed atm so I'm not going to read that now. Is the obesity-fertility relationship one of tempered desire or of actual fertility problems? A TFR below replacement across all of the West cannot possibly be due to (non-psychological/cultural) fertility problems, can it?

"1) Less history sharing spaces. American whites are like African big game--we've 'evolved' alongside more violent blacks and consequently know how to navigate with and around them for the most part. Countries like Sweden have gone from nothing to majority-Muslim cities in a single generation. Native Swedes are dodo birds."

Howard Stern has without sugarcoating talked about his parents refusing to move and/or send him to a different school in the late 60's by which time desegregation was well underway and blacks were getting an attitude. He got bullied endlessly, but his parents just did not want to accept that maybe the liberals were wrong about the horror of segregation.

Current (Gen X/early Millennial) parents of young kids in Sweden are going to be like the G.I.s and Silents in Mid-Century America; clueless about the harm posed by blacks. White Boomers who lived through desegregation grew up to be parents who kept their kids out of basketball and had to often pay a great price to keep their kids away from blacks. Eventually, Sweden's current youngest generation is going to adopt the parental lifestyle of American Boomers.

Eventually, as long as ethnic Swedes remain politically dominant, they're going to have to either repatriate lots of Muslims or get tough on crime/build prisons. Keep in mind that one difficulty here is that modern Swedes are some of the most passively liberal people on Earth. The insufferable guilt-ridden puritanical style of Anglo Brits and Nords used to be even more common in America, but it got worn down to some degree by Celts, Italians, and even Baltic people like Poles/Czechs/Slovaks. Throw in some people from the hillbilly regions of Germany and France, too. Sweden somehow has to find its inner Viking, after centuries of being the least offensive people on Earth.

BTW, I seem to remember Carlton Coon saying that the burly blonde farmer types were the dominant Nordic type which emigrated to the Midwest and Western US. While the darker and more gracile merchant class was making enough money in Stockholm that they didn't need cheap US farmland. How much muscle is left in the motherland?

Scandis were one of the most law abiding peoples when they still were white. Either they put dark criminals behind bars, or they're going down the road of England where cultural elites pat themselves on the back about not being like barbaric Americans while few areas are truly safe anymore.

Notably, Australia and New Zealand, just like America, had extensive populations of dark criminals (aborigines and Maori) before WW2 and thus developed penal facilities and law enforcement to properly protect whites. White countries that had darkies loosed upon them after WW2 have not been allowed to develop appropriate policies, lest they be accused of copying Hitler or worse, America. Canada has thus far, in most areas, not had a terribly large number of blacks or sand negros, plus they've been selective with immigration.

White countries can be placed into about 4 categories:

1. Heavily white countries with docile whites2. Heavily white countries with "wilder" whites (Slavic, Baltic, Iberian)3. White countries with either dark indigenous populations/and or slaves (Australia, New Zealand, America) but with well-behaved whites.4. Once heavily white countries that have rapidly darkened since 1960, with the earlier hit countries (mainly the Brit. Isle countries aside from Ireland) appearing to have thrown a fair number of darks into prison but nervous about putting too many whites or darks behind bars, while those that have been infiltrated since the mid 90's (France, Germany/Austria, Scandinavia, Ireland) absolutely have to start deporting and arresting more people and building more prisons, lest their native populations experience the terror and despair that urban America dealt with in the late 60's-early 80's.

"The majority of New Zealand's population is of European descent (69 percent identify as "New Zealand European"), with the indigenous Māori being the largest minority (14.6 percent), followed by Asians (9.2 percent) and non-Māori Pacific Islanders (6.9 percent). This is reflected in immigration, with most new migrants coming from Britain and Ireland, although the numbers from Asia are increasing"

There ya go. Fascinatingly, Maori and American blacks make up a similar proportion of their country's respective demographics. It's like there's a ceiling with this kind of dysfunction. Headstrong, chaotic, obstreperous, neither group will ever have it's shit together long enough to colonize more of their country's space. Also whites form about 70% of each country's population, though in America whites are rapidly declining and will never regain their numbers absent ethnic partitioning/repatriation/expulsion. America once gained territory by fighting off the Brits, The French, The Spanish, and the Indians. Now that we're decadent and weak, others are moving in to push us away from our once great country built from the sweat and blood of previous generations (all of whom were primarily white and did these things in spite of the presence of blacks, Indians, and Mexicans who thwarted progress to varying degrees). Trying to duplicate 1980's and 1990's Los Angeles across the entire country will go down as one the biggest follies in human history; Either we make a stand (East of the Rockies, give me one West of the Rockies urban area whose whites aren't mostly or entirely full of shit) or we're finished.

Lately I've been seeing Mexicans and even towelheads in my neck of the woods. Like, as recently as 4-5 years ago this 2nd degree suburb was about 70-80% lower middle class white with most of the non whites being black apartment dwellers with a few Mexicans/Asians thrown in. O'er the couple years dot Indians, arabs, and even a couple Somalis have made their way up here in drips and drabs. No real crime problem (the rentals presumably are decently priced), and as long as whites and even a fair number of Mexicans stay put, shouldn't be too worried. Yet....What if I had kids? I'm seeing a lot more brown tots trundling about. Expensiveness, cultural nihilism, and perhaps, diversity, all serve to depress white birth rates.

You once had to go to LA, Chicago, or NYC to see a lot of young brown and black faces. How did we get here? Where even the Minnesota suburbs aren't cracka havens anymore? The Grocery store, garage sales, etc. it's becoming too easy to hear funny voices. If I wanted Blade Runner I'd go to the goddamn city or better yet, watch the movie. Great, now it's coming to me. Who asked for my permission? Why can't I talk about it at work unless it's just me and a middle-aged white coworker who I trust? Why are my ancestors arrested for warning us?

Blade Runner coming to Middle America is, according to shit lib horror stories backed up with survey evidence, a big reason why whites in non-elite areas have gone so heavily against the Dems (especially in the Midwest, South, and Mid-Atlantic where whites want their existing territory to remain in wholesome white hands, lest more of our lands come to resemble Detroit or New Dehli). It's incumbent upon the GOP to prove they're a worthwhile alternative, let's hope we can primary away some of the big cucks but as Agnostic noted, Trump's Twitter has been much more blandly pro-GOP since April as he has avoided taking sides even when one candidate is clearly more Trump-like.

I live three miles from the house I grew up in. When my wife and I were looking a few years ago, I was stunned to find that my elementary school, which was ~95% n-H white when I went there in the mid-nineties, is now only 60% n-H white. We'd found a couple of potential houses in my very neighborhood (grandparents nearby are a huge quality-of-life asset, parenthetically!) but I nixed even looking at them when I saw the elementary school stats. A huge complex of fairly nice apartments (~$900/month) was built in the early 2000s.

The neighborhood we ended up buying a house in has an elementary school that exactly encompasses the entire subdivision and nothing else.

AE - “Is the obesity-fertility relationship one of tempered desire or of actual fertility problems?”

Obesity appears to affect fertility both psychologically and physiologically. It is largely speculation on my part, but I suspect that evolution selected for both these traits in geographic areas where food availability had significant seasonal variation. This might explain why some men express different female body type preference. As an example, there is a “song” that contains the lyrics “I like a thick girl with a big booty … Yeah, I like a big girl that can cook like my mama”. There are many papers detailing the physiological effects of obesity on fertility:

The adverse effects of obesity on conception and implantationhttp://www.reproduction-online.org/content/140/3/347.full

“A TFR below replacement across all of the West cannot possibly be due to (non-psychological/cultural) fertility problems, can it?”

I don’t believe that TFR below replacement is a Western cultural phenomena. Fertility is not just below replacement across the West, there is now a strong negative correlation between the Human Development Index (HDI) and fertility across the world. We see sub-replacement fertility in developed Eastern countries such as Japan and South Korea. We see it in semi-developed countries such as Brazil, Iran, Russia and Thailand.

If fertility was below replacement due to a cultural preference, we should see an expressed family size preference that is below the replacement level. However, you have presented data showing that family size preference has remained above the replacement level over the last four decades. Fertility also appears to have a strong negative correlation with a woman’s obesity level in her late teens. Are you aware of any evidence that suggests there is a cultural problem impacting fertility around the world?http://anepigone.blogspot.co.id/2017/03/the-future-belongs-to-those-who-show-up.html

If they wanted people to get along then segregation would be the law they support. Its not the prejudiced that hate minorities, its the people who meet them in real life. Murder, rape and robbery will clear out those racial egalitarian fantasies right quick. The animals seem nice and friendly in a safe secure environment, like a zoo or high security armed zone with a Man in a Yellow Hat to play it up. Its those harrowing real life experiences with unrestrained wild animal behavior on a Safari to Ape City that makes diversity the bad word you really hate.

"Not primarily due to physiological problems" is how I should've phrased it.

Wrt culture, female educational attainment inversely correlates very strongly with fertility, both between countries and within them. Education may well be a tactic to use in reducing sub-Saharan African fertility. That seems to be the WEIRDO expectation, anyway. But what has worked with parts of the Muslim world, Latin America, and South Asia doesn't appear to be working much at all in sub-Saharan Africa.

Good point re: ideal family size. The lazy way to conceptualize it--and the way I do--is of a woman who wants to Eat, Pray, Love, sew the wild oats, and then settle down because 40 is the new 20 or whatever. Biology has different ideas, but that doesn't become starkly apparent until the wall appears over the horizon.

AE - I suspect that having ancestry from an environment where food is highly seasonly available correlates with an increased propensity to reproduce at a lower body weight and increased intelligence. I also suspect that people who are overweight are less likely to get married young, and have a higher level of education than they otherwise would. So I'm not sure the correlation you are noting is because increased education is causing lower fertility.

I think a multi-regression analysis is required to better understand this effect. I recall that you don't have perfect body weight measures in the GSS, but it should have value. Can you perform a multi-regression analysis looking at race, body weight, education, intelligence, and fertility? This would help determine if increased education is really caused reduced fertility, or if coming from a certain environment is causing high education levels and reduced fertility associated with obesity.

"Education may well be a tactic to use in reducing sub-Saharan African fertility." - the population has always expanded to the level that food availability supports. I don't think we have evolved to the level where we can manage world population numbers, although I don't rule out this could happen at some later generation.

"Biology has different ideas, but that doesn't become starkly apparent until the wall appears over the horizon." - there have always been women who didn't marry. In fact, because giving birth was so dangerous, some women avoided marriage if they thought their hip size indicated greater likelihood of death in childbirth. I agree that the culture would be healthier if we could better explain to women that they are the most fertile in their 20s, and this is the ideal marriage age. However, I believe non-obese women have a fertility rate quite close to the expressed ideal, and that obesity increases age of first marriage. So I don't think the effect of delayed marriage is nearly as significant in reducing fertility as obesity. I also believe the effect it is smaller than that in prior generations of women not marrying due to a belief that their hip size was insufficient for childbirth. The modern age has introduced the former problem, but solved the later.

AE - I discovered the multiple regression analysis has already been performed. It appears your statement "female educational attainment inversely correlates very strongly with fertility" is incorrect. After adjusting for race, education increases fertility. Obesity reduces fertility. The normal weight women in the study had replacement fertility (adjusting for TFR would have given above replacement fertility). This is what I predicted.

Lower fertility associated with obesity and underweight: the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youthhttp://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/886.full